JUDGMENT-The plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 429 of 1974 of the file of the Small Causes Court, Nagpur has preferred this revision against the dismissal of his claim for eviction of the erstwhile tenant in the suit premises. 2. The plaintiff owns a house at Nagpur and a part of it was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. According to the plaintiff, the house in question was constructed in 1952 and as such the provisions of C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 are not applicable. The plaintiff terminated the defendant's tenancy by notice dated 24-11-1973 and thereafter filed the suit under revision for recovery of possession and certain arrears. 3. Long before 1951, there was a Pucca Masonry plinth on the plot in question. Plaintiff's vendor is one Pathak who purchased the house on 27-1-1951. In the sale deed Exh. 32 there is a reference of the existence of such a plinth on the said plot. The Government bas issued a notification granting certain exemptions from the operation of the Rent Control Order. For example, a house used for residential purposes is exempted if it is constructed on a 'site lying vacant on 1st January, 1951 or on a site made vacant on or after that date by demolition of any structure standing on such site. The main contention of the defendant is that the plot was not vacant as the plinth was standing since before 1-1-1951 and hence the Rent Control Order is applicable. It is needless to say that under that Order it is necessary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Rent Controller before terminating the tenancy. It is common ground that the said permission was not obtained by the plaintiff. 4. The learned Small Causes Judge after recording evidence that was led before him came to the conclusion that there existed a plinth on the plot since before 1-1-1951 and thus the construction of the house in 1952 by Pathak was not on a vacant plot. It is for this reason that the trial Court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy without getting the permission from the Rent Controller. 5. It is for this reason that the trial Court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy without getting the permission from the Rent Controller. 5. It was contended by Shri Udhoji for the plaintiff-applicant that the evidence led before the trial Court has not been properly read for the purpose of deciding the controversy as to whether the house has been constructed on or before 1-1-1951 on a plot which was either vacant or was subsequently made vacant. In the sale deed Exh. 32 there is a mention of the existence of Pucca Masonry Plinth. Pathak has constructed the house in 1952. The plaintiff bas produced a certified copy of the plan sanctioned by the Municipality on 29-6-1951. The said plan has been exhibited at Ex. 28. Shri Sontakke for the tenant-non-applicant contended that this plan cannot be read in evidence as it has not been proved. This contention bas been upheld by the trial Court. Shri Udhoji, however, urged that under the Municipal Rules and Regulations an applicant seeking permission to make construction has to apply to the Municipal Authority along with the plans and the concerned Municipal Authority sanctions the plan and then issued permission. According to Shri Udhoji, the record consisting of the sanctioned plan would be a public document as contemplated by section 74 of the Evidence Act and it can be proved by production of a certified copy. In my opinion, this submission is well founded. There is nothing in the way of the plaintiff to prove the plan by producing a certified copy from the Municipal authority. 6. In this revision I do not propose to decide as to whether a plot with only a plinth thereon is a vacant plot. Shri Udhoji's contention is that Pathak has demolished the old plinth and has erected a new plinth while constructing the house. According to him the plot was thus made by demolishing he plinth. In the trial Court, plaintiff's vendor Pathak has been examined by the defendant. In the examination-in-chief he has stated that there Was a plinth on the plot when he purchased it. He then stated that some portion of his house was constructed by him on the plinth while for some other portion. he has built his own plinth. In the trial Court, plaintiff's vendor Pathak has been examined by the defendant. In the examination-in-chief he has stated that there Was a plinth on the plot when he purchased it. He then stated that some portion of his house was constructed by him on the plinth while for some other portion. he has built his own plinth. In the cross-examination, he has made the position clear by stating that he had constructed 15 per cent plinth anew. When the cross-examination was further pursued, he has stated that the plinth above ground level was entirely constructed newly as the old plinth was made in mud and stones. Thus, here is a case where Pathak before constructing the house has removed the plinth from the plot. Shri Sontakke, however, contended that this evidence will be insufficient to hold that Pathak has removed the foundation under the ground. According to him, such non-removal would mean that Pathak has not made the site vacant for making construction in 1952. The relevant wording of the notification is that a site made vacant on or after that date by demolition of any structure standing on such site. In my opinion, the omission to dig out and throwaway the foundation under the ground would not mean that the site has not been made vacant. What is contemplated is that 'structure standing on the site has to be demolished'. The notification exempts the buildings that came into existence after 1951. It appears that the main reason behind this exemption is that buildings activities should not come to a stand still due to the applicability of the Rent Control Order to all buildings. It seems very difficult to accept the contention of Shri Sontakke that the notification aimed at this purpose should be construed in such a technical manner by holding that though the entire structure has been built in 1951 still the building so constructed would be governed by the Rent Control Order simply because the under-ground foundation was previously existing. In view of this position, the learned Small Causes Judge has committed an error in holding that the Rent Control Order was applicable. If that finding is set aside, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed. In view of this position, the learned Small Causes Judge has committed an error in holding that the Rent Control Order was applicable. If that finding is set aside, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed. Shri Sontakke submitted that the defendant would be rendered homeless if he is asked to vacate the premises immediately and that some time may be granted to the defendant to deliver possession. I think that six months's time would meet the ends of justice. 7. Rule is made absolute, the decree passed by the lower Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit is set aside and in its place, a decree for possession and damages of Rs. 177/- with costs of the suit in the trial Court as also in this Court is passed. An enquiry as to the future mesne profits from the date of suit till the delivery of possession is directed. The defendant is given six months' time to vacate the premises. The decree is, therefore, executable on or after 6th of March 1981. Rule made absolute.